The whole "after incident [redacted] a secondary rapport" doesn't make sense. SCP pages are meant to be information, not stories. Those details belong on the main rapport.

SCPs in universe are documents, sure. To us, they are stories, meant to be read and to entertain. I know of a few SCPs that have multiple reports (such as SCP-2317), so it's not something we shy away from. If you don't think it works fro this particular SCP that's fine, you just have to be more clear on why you don't think it worked and what can be done to fix it. Also it's "report", not "rapport".

"…the death of [████] personnel." First of all, "a personnel" isn't a thing. "Personnel members" is better. Second, no brackets around black boxes, the black boxes are enough.

While it's true that saying "a personnel" would be wrong, the author never did that. They blackboxed the number of personnel killed. Saying "personnel members" is redundant , the definition of personnel is "people employed in an organization".

Please be more careful when critiquing drafts in the future. Misleading crit can be worse than no crit.

1) Formatting: The format, when divided as separate reports, is an exact match to the one provided by the site, though it's not uncommon for people to switch it up. I was thinking that putting the secondary report on another page would make more sense, but I'm uncertain if doing so would confuse readers, or readers would only end up reading the first report. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though, as structure can influence how people see a piece.

2) Secondary Report: The reason for the secondary report was explained, being that the initial report couldn't be altered. Many archivists, however, would say that keeping the original report would be advisable as it offers perspective on how knowledge has been gained on a subject.

3) Mother of Pearl: Nacre is the material of which mother of pearl and pearls are comprised. Much how you would not call jasper "aggregate quarts", most craftsmen refer to the iridescent nacre composite found on the interior of pearl mollusk shells as mother of pearl or mother-of-pearl.

4) Harm vs Damage: On this I agree, as "harm" denotes sentience of some sort in more formal writings. A misstep with colloquial terminology, as many people refer to damaging more expensive or valued items as harming them. Thank you.

5.a) Numbering Personnel: The correct way to frame it, according to what I could find, would be (number) persons or individuals. Again, it was common usage which mislead me, though I would note that many SCP reports do phrase it as (number) personnel. Collective nouns can be tricky to navigate sometimes. Thank you.
5.b) Brackets: These were accidental, a remnant from not having actual black boxes in the word processor I use. I didn't even see them, so thank you for pointing them out.

6) Box Opening: while not explicitly stated, an oversight honestly, it is implied via containment procedures that the anomalous properties only present themselves when more than one humanoid is present, meaning a single person opening the box would be met with inert objects. Clarification would help though, as "implied" information is not something the Foundation would allow in a report. Thank you again.

7) Data Corruption: I was hesitant to use this tool to be honest, but given the nature of the object in question, with its ability to manipulate information pertaining to itself, it would be disingenuous to not include a level of corruption or alteration. I understand your distaste for "corrupted data", however, as I've seen it used to make writing a report easier, to hide the author's lapse of creativity, or to make it "creepier. Usually to ill effect.